Ill. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 185.05

In order for Plaintiff to recover for a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim

against Defendant, Plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

First, that the problem of which Plaintiff complains existed when it left Defe ndant's

control. The Plaintiff may prove this by showing:

a. [the problem was due to a defect or malfunction of the [vehicle] [product];] or

b. [in the absence of abnormal use or reasonable seconda ry causes the [vehicle] [product]

failed to perform in the mann er reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended

function;]

Second, that the defect made the [vehicle] [product] unfit for the ordinary purpose such a

[vehicle] [product] is used;

Third, that the Plaintiff notified Defendant or its authorized deal er of the defect within a

reasonable amount of time after discovering it;

Fourth, that Defendant or its authorized dealer did not repair the v ehicle [product] after

being g iven a reasonable number of attempts or did not offer to refund, replace or take other

remedial action within a reasonable amount of time.

Fifth, that Plaintiff sustained damages; and

Sixth, that Plaintiff's damages were proximately caused by the [vehicle] [product] being

unfit for the ordinary purpose for which such [vehicles] [products] are used.

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has

been proven, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff. On the oth er hand, if you find from

your consideration of all the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proven, then

your verdict should be for the Defendant.

Instruction, Notes and Comment approved January 2007.